CFR Presents

Asia Unbound

CFR experts give their take on the cutting-edge issues emerging in Asia today.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


Aam Aadmi Party: Sweeping out Foreign Investment

by Alyssa Ayres
January 14, 2014

AAP- Policy reversal Arvind Kejriwal (R), leader of Aam Aadmi (Common Man) Party, speaks during a meeting with his party leaders and media personnel after taking the oath as the new chief minister of Delhi, in New Delhi on December 28, 2013. (Anindito Mukherjee/Courtesy: Reuters)


Monday’s news that the new Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led Delhi government decided to opt out of a year-old policy opening India’s “multibrand” retail sector to foreign investment will give international businesses interested in India pause. Amidst the news of a promising and hopeful rise of a political party focused on accountability and governance for the common man, many people outside of India have wondered what the AAP’s stance would be on economic policy. This is as good a preview as any—and it’s troubling.

Unlike in many countries, the debate about “multibrand” retail (a store that sells many different brands, like a department or big box store, as opposed to a “single-brand” store like Louis Vuitton) has a long and politically contentious history in India. The sector was closed entirely to foreign direct investment, despite substantial national debate for many years, until the UPA government boldly changed the policy in 2011. Unfortunately the 2011 opening led to the withdrawl of West Bengal’s Trinamool Congress from the UPA coalition—one of its largest coalition allies—and the policy was suspended while the federal government returned to stakeholder consultation. When it again announced an opening to foreign investment for multibrand retail in late 2012, it allowed individual states to opt in or opt out, one of several compensatory measures to make the policy palatable to objectors. Delhi was among the first ten, largely Congress-led, states to opt in.

I can’t say it’s a surprise, given that “opposing FDI in retail” was contained in the AAP campaign manifesto for Delhi, that the new Delhi government wrote to the government of India to rescind Delhi’s permission for multibrand retail yesterday, but it still jars to read the news.   Leaving aside the merits (and demerits) of the multibrand retail debate for now, this news matters because of the signal Delhi’s decision sends to the world about India as an investment destination.

First, since no foreign multibrand retailers are operating yet anywhere in India, let alone in Delhi, this policy change does not require an expulsion of any foreign businesses—but what if it had? At best, the decision signals that policy changes are not institutionalized and can be abruptly undone. At worst, it marks what may well be the first example of an economic reform reversal in India. Policy changes move slowly and in due time in India, but it’s often said that they don’t go backwards. As of January 2014, one has.

Second, it’s worth remembering, in the context of larger debates about FDI in India, that AAP is hardly an outlier on this question. The BJP famously opposes FDI in retail, for example, as do numerous other regional parties. At a time when states are increasingly looking abroad to attract investment for their own growth, foreign investors may now need to add a new calculation to their models: the probability of any future state-level government changing the terms for their presence.

Add it all up and it sends a confusing, conflicted signal to interested foreign investors. Late Monday, Indian papers were reporting that an “angry India Inc” is worried that the Delhi decision would discourage investment. Indeed. At a time when the government of India has been pitching the world to invest in India, AAP’s message has to hurt.

Post a Comment 4 Comments

  • Posted by Ram

    I have come to realize after 20 years of living in the US and adopting this country as mine that there we have an illusion of choice in many aspects of our everyday life. But in reality, what appears to be independent choice are all an upside down tree – many branches but a single root. It is Kroger or Walmart, Coke or Pepsi etc. etc. Say what you want to, but there was no such illusion in India – Every grocery store is owned by a single “family” which is passed down with every generation. If I don’t like this “Nadar store” I can go to another “Chettiar store” — each one is independently owned and operated. That is true freedom of choice. Say no to foreign investment.

  • Posted by Kavita

    The decision of AAP is quite good. All the foreign investors want to exploit the Indian markets but having no concern for millions of people who depend upon their livelihood on retail business. Why to term India as a protectionist when the most developed countries too place many restrictions in the name of visa fees, preference to the local people in jobs. Hence the decision is in accordance to local conditions and good one.

  • Posted by Dr. Kallol Guha

    Only way a country can better the condition of its people and infra structure is by improving the health, education, and living conditions of its human resources by generating wealth by utilizing its own raw materials and manpower. Countries that publicize themselves as “Developed” have first taken control of its own human and natural resources before allowing foreign investment. Agents and pimps of these “Developed” countries have infiltrated in Indian Government to sell its mines, hills, forests and rivers. It is said 136 NGO are ostensibly working in India to “Improve ” living conditions of villagers but their hidden agenda is to disintegrate India. They are all financed by the West. Be careful about the “freedom of press” of those who lobby for FDI.

  • Posted by Caroline Gaines

    After attending a FDI conference in Delhi at a well known university this winter, I realized that despite all the empirical data presented by the scholars, it was an emotional discussion about post-colonialsm, kiranas and farmers, not an economic argument, at its root. Interesting, considering how many of the attendees jumped into their Volkswagon’s to swing by Marks & Spencer on their way home…

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required